@ DeAnna2112, that is simply not true. No tests have actually demonstrated actual lung damage from diacetyls. Some studies have suggested a correlation, specifically in industrial mixing environments, mainly those popcorn mixing stations. The studies have found correlation, nothing more. There is far more than correlation to science. Although correlation is more than good enough for propaganda purposes.
If you want to insist that all inhalation of diacetyl is the same then you have to explain this 50 Ton Elephant in the Diacetyl Room....
The average exposure of the affected popcorn workers was 0.2 ppm, which works out to about 2700 micrograms per day of exposure, and that is only 5 days a week (presumably), and maybe 50 weeks a year. Or 250/365 = 68% of a full time exposure.
The average amount of diacetyl released in a single cigarette is about 330 micrograms, which works out to around 6700 micrograms per day. That is around 2.5x the daily exposure that the popcorn workers received, and it is typically 7 days per week, 52 weeks a year (most don't take an annual week or two or three vacation from smoking). For a 2 PAD smoker, that is 5x the exposure. Factoring in true annual exposure would raise that by a third or so.
In the popcorn worker cases studied, full blown BO, requiring lung transplants for continued survival, occurred within 10 years. Significant lung impairment was found in workers after only 2 years.
If you want to insist that all diacetyl inhalation is the same, you have to explain why significant smoker related lung disease takes 30-40 years to develop, at 2-5x the diacetyl exposure or more, when popcorn workers got it in less than 10 years. How many cases of "advanced COPD" do you hear about in 10 year smokers? Where are the legions of 20-something year olds with advanced COPD?
Some like to argue that BO is some silent epidemic, that millions of smokers have died over the years with advanced COPD (with death often for other reasons like stroke or heart attack) ETA: that was really BO in disguise, but not one of these lungs was autopsied. How many pictures have you seen of "smoker's black lungs" taken from cadavers? Do you believe none of these lungs were cut open to determine the nature of the lung impairment?
Even if you want to believe that fiction, you have to explain the timeline discrepancy.
There is so much more to the diacetyl story. Unfortunately it is unlikely that gov't will take much interest in studying that 50 ton elephant. After all, gov't has bought and paid for "research" it can use to declare vaping "extremely hazardous to your health", justifying any and all controls, bans, and most importantly, taxation. No need to look any further when the goal is taxation and control, not a search for the truth.
But that does not mean we need to buy that line. Please apply some critical thinking to your argument.
)
